Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SYSTEMS INTEGRATION <br />AS A WATER SUPPLY SOURCE <br />FOR THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA <br /> <br />I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND <br /> <br />The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of water supply alternatives and to <br />suggest a process of intergovernmental planning to address the future water supply needs of the <br />Denver Metro Area. This report is intended as a discussion document to begin a process of <br />objective evaluation of alternative sources of water supply with emphasis on possibilities for <br />cooperative management and operation of existing systems to meet both near term and long <br />term needs. <br /> <br />A. The Current Status of Metro Water Planning <br /> <br />Water supply planning efforts since the EPA veto of Two Forks have continued in a <br />largely piecemeal fashion with far less cooperation between metro area water purveyors than <br />was the case under the agreements between Denver and the suburbs for development of Two <br />Forks. The Denver Water Department has focused its efforts on the process of renegotiating <br />contracts with many of its suburban distributors to address problems concerning long-term <br />water supply availability and reliability, rate issues, service area boundaries and conservation. <br />Denver is also revising its water supply planning efforts with near term emphasis on smaller <br />projects, such as Muddy Creek Reservoir, along with conservation to meet the needs of their <br />existing service area. <br /> <br />In November of 1991, eight of the more than forty participants in the Metropolitan <br />Water Providers agreements filed suit in the US District Court for Colorado against the <br />Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the Army Corps of Engineers (CEO) challenging <br />their decision to prohibit construction of Two Forks Reservoir. The Courts decision on a <br />motion to dismiss based upon the question of whether or not the individual providers have <br />standing to bring the suit is currently pending. The Denver Water Board has not joined the <br />litigation and recently took action to suspend the Two Forks Participation Agreement. <br /> <br />Another subset of thirteen of the participants in the Metropolitan Water Providers have <br />formed the Metropolitan Denver Water Authority to continue coordination of efforts to develop <br />new water supply sources. In mid-1991, the Authority retained the firm of Leonard Rice <br />Consulting Water Engineers to investigate and prioritize water supply development projerts. <br />This study is complete but currently confidential, and is reported to have identified sources <br />that could deliver approximately 25,000 acre-feet from groundwater supplies, water exchanges, <br />and small west slope and east slope projects. The intent of the Authority is that these supply <br />projects would help meet suburban needs until development of Two Forks or some equivalent <br />project. <br /> <br />Meanwhile, individual cities including Aurora, Thornton, Westminster, Broomfield and <br />others are independently pursuing water sources to enhance their own systems. These efforts <br />include acquisition of additional agricultural water rights, purchase of Windy Gap Water from <br />Boulder, and diversion projects such as Homestake II. <br />